Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Simviation Forum - Cessna 152 FSX add on available free
For all those who are new to flight simulation in general and have Microsoft FSX, here is the Cessna 152 add on available for free at:
http://www.fsinsider.com/news/Pages/FreeGiftfromFSInsider.aspx
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Why is this in flight school?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was posted in the FSX board too.
Not sure why. It's been out quite a while.
Should be added to the FSX aircraft list though....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tcco94 wrote on Oct 23 rd , 2009 at 7:55pm:
Why is this in flight school?
I suppose the reason is, that Folks new to Flight Simulation should be encouraged to perfect their necessary skills in the the Cessna 152 Trainer, in the Flight School, before moving on to more complex aircraft...
...!
Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find this 152 particularly sensitive to control inputs.
I'm not sure that it's at all realistic as I've not flown a 152 in real life.
I have flown a 172, and I find the "feel" of the FSX 172 is quite good.
I'm not big on editing aircraft (maybe the designers wanted it to feel this way?), but I think this one needs some configuration work.
I suppose if one gets good at smooth control in the twitchy 152, it would be real easy to fly a 172.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flaminghotsauce wrote on Oct 24 th , 2009 at 7:17pm:
I find this 152 particularly sensitive to control inputs.
I'm not sure that it's at all realistic as I've not flown a 152 in real life.
I have flown a 172, and I find the "feel" of the FSX 172 is quite good.
I'm not big on editing aircraft (maybe the designers wanted it to feel this way?), but I think this one needs some configuration work.
I suppose if one gets good at smooth control in the twitchy 152, it would be real easy to fly a 172.
The Cessna 150/152 is a lighter, and better balanced Aircraft (in my opinion), than the Cessna 172, which is more sluggish due to its extra weight, and the larger engine tends to make it slightly nose-heavy.
The little Cessna is a sprightly machine, a joy to fly, and very forgiving, which makes it an excellent Trainer!
...and cheaper to replace...if you seriously bend it..!
Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...
...!
My Favourite C150 for FS 2004....C150_v2....>>>
Http://www.flightsim.com/file.php?cm=SEARCH1&fsec=0&fname=C150_V2.ZIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I started this thread is, 152 is a good plane to start off before getting on the 172.
I remember starting off the very first flying lesson on FSX with a small plane..not sure what it is ..it has 1 seat..anyways after this there was no 152 in between before going to 172 etc..and flying the 172 for the first time is hard for beginners.
Yes the 152 is somewhat sensitive but still easier to handle than the 172 for people who start the flight-sim.
Will post this in the download section too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 150/152 series, like their predecessors the 120/140, are designed to suffer a student pilot's ham-handedness with aerodynamic aplomb.
One has to be fairly emphatic to disturb it from its natural inclination to return to straight and level flight.
Believe they may have a Lyc in them now but the old Continental O-200 was a fine little engine.
With the old 40 degree flaps and some timely power management, they'd land impressively short.
So much so that a lot of folks have moved the main gear forward, installed an O-320 and hung the nosewheel where it belongs - under the elevators .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Olderndirt wrote on Oct 27 th , 2009 at 8:39pm:
The 150/152 series, like their predecessors the 120/140, are designed to suffer a student pilot's ham-handedness with aerodynamic aplomb.
One has to be fairly emphatic to disturb it from its natural inclination to return to straight and level flight.
Believe they may have a Lyc in them now but the old Continental O-200 was a fine little engine.
With the old 40 degree flaps and some timely power management, they'd land impressively short.
So much so that a lot of folks have moved the main gear forward, installed an O-320 and hung the nosewheel where it belongs - under the elevators .
Pilots who I have spoken to, speak with much affection for the Cessna 150 fitted with the Rolls Royce Continental Engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_O-200
They claim it is assembled with greater care then its Lycoming equivalent, leading to reliability?
The Rolls Royce Continental O-200engine fitted to a C150 can always be recognised by the small Union Flag placed on the Engine Side Cowling...
...!
Our local Aero Club has a few visitors C150/152's converted to Tail Draggers....and very smart they look too!...
...!
Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fozzer wrote on Oct 28 th , 2009 at 4:41am:
Pilots who I have spoken to, speak with much affection for the Cessna 150 fitted with the Rolls Royce Continental Engine.
No argument there.
Rolls Royce is a 'jewel in the crown'.
Even back in the 'Merlin' days, when Packard was licensed to build it for the P51, the Rolls Merlin was the 'Holy Grail'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no opinion on the 150/152, because I can't FIT into one..
Now..
A Piper Tomahawk is a similar airplane, as far as weight, power and a trainer designation goes.
Plus it accomodates 6+ footers easily And the bubble-like cockpit/canopy makes for much better visibility.
They are extremely fun to fly, and demand a little more discipline, on the part of a student pilot ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brett_Henderson wrote on Oct 28 th , 2009 at 10:57am:
Now..
A Piper Tomahawk is a similar airplane, as far as weight, power and a trainer designation goes.
Plus it accomodates 6+ footers easily And the bubble-like cockpit/canopy makes for much better visibility.
They are extremely fun to fly, and demand a little more discipline, on the part of a student pilot ..
That's what makes a good trainer.
IMHO
I can't comment on the Cessna trainers as I've never even sat in one but I was never keen on high-wing types for training purposes.
A matter of opinion I suppose.
As for the Rolls-Royce Continental engine fitted to the Reims F150, if I remember correctly RR were persuaded by the British government to manufacture Continental engines under licence as there were no British-made engines available for the range of aircraft manufactured by the newly formed Beagle company.
Rolls-Royce reluctantly agreed to do it providing they could modify the engines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I miss flying the old 1973 150 I learned to fly in.
It had the 40 degree flap setting.
With 40 degrees of flaps, it was like you were just hanging in the wind, plus you could turn short final high and perform very steep power off landings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My first mount for lessons was a very nice 70s-vintage 150, with a rear-view mirror on the glareshield and a fuel selector handle that was hard to find in the carpeting under the seats...how I loved that plane.
Kept me honest, but gave me time to learn the motions.
Even with a little more hp (like the 152) or a jewel-like engine (like the RR powerplants), it's still just an excellent trainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rottydaddy wrote on Oct 28 th , 2009 at 11:18pm:
My first mount for lessons was a very nice 70s-vintage 150, with a rear-view mirror on the glareshield and a fuel selector handle that was hard to find in the carpeting under the seats...how I loved that plane.
Kept me honest, but gave me time to learn the motions.
Even with a little more hp (like the 152) or a jewel-like engine (like the RR powerplants), it's still just an excellent trainer.
I realise that I must be wrong as the Cessna trainers are popular with flying clubs & schools all over the world.
This would obviously depend on one's own experience.
I've been interested in training since starting my first job with the flying club in 1960.
The basic trainers in common use at the time were mainly ex-RAF types, the Tiger Moth & Miles Magister being most popular.
The DHC Chipmunk was in service with the RAF from 1946 until 1996.
These are all tandem cockpit taildraggers & not a high-winger among them.
Things have changed a bit with civil flying training since then but the RAF still uses low-wing basic trainers today.
I've always believed that a good trainer is easy to fly but difficult to fly well.
That's the reason for the Tiger Moth being regarded by many as the finest basic trainer ever built.
I think Fozzer is mistaken about that RR Continental.
The Reims-built F150 was originally fitted with the Rolls-Royce O-240-A piston engine of 130 hp which is more powerful than the 100 hp Continental O-200-A fitted to US-built aircraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|